Madras High Court
CRP/6164/2026 of Santhamurthy Vs Indirani (Died) ,1.Rajendiran on 1 October 2026
CRP No. 6164 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
CRP No. 6164 of 2026
and CMP No. 26682 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012148132026}
Santhamurthy
S/o. Late Narayanasamy,
3/3A, Pillaiyar Koil Street,
Kandaneri Village,
Anaicut Taluk,
Vellore District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Indirani (Died)
1. Rajendiran
S/o. Late Kannan,
Res. at Koil Street,
Kandaneri Village and Post,
Anaicut Taluk,
Vellore District.
2. Apple @ Saroja
W/o. Rajendiran,
Res. at Koil Street,
Kandaneri Village and Post,
Anaicut Taluk,
Vellore District.
3. Thilagavathy
D/o. Indirani,
W/o. Mahadevan,
Kizhpudur Village,
H/o. Balu, Post near Om Sakthi Temple,
Ambur Taluk,
Tirupattur District.
4. Vellaiponnu @ Velli Ammal
D/o. Indirani,
( Uploaded on: 08/10/2026 04:56:44 pm )
CRP No. 6164 of 2026
W/o. Kanniyappan,
Usampatti Village,
Anganallur Post,
Gudiyatham Taluk,
Vellore District.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the Fair order dated 07.08.2026 passed in IA No. 1 of 2026 in IA.No.44 of 2020 in OS No. 90 of 2017 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Vellore and thus render justice.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.T.R.Rajaraman
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the fair and decreetal order dated 07.08.2026 passed in IA No. 1 of 2026 in IA.No.44 of 2020 in OS No. 90 of 2017 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Vellore, wherein the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff to reopen IA No.44 of 2020 in O.S.No.90 of 2017, came to be rejected by the Court below.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the materials available on record and this Court also carefully went through the order passed by the Court below.
( Uploaded on: 08/10/2026 04:56:44 pm )
CRP No. 6164 of 2026
3. The petitioner is the plaintiff who filed the suit in O.S.No.90 of 2017 seeking for the relief of declaration and for delivery of possession. During the pendency of the suit, an application was filed in IA No.44 of 2020 under Order XXVI Rule 9 of C.P.C., for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to make an inspection, to note down the physical features and to submit a report. This application was allowed and the Advocate Commissioner submitted the report and the petitioner/plaintiff has also filed his objections to the report and more particularly, with regard to the absence of the measurement of the extent of property in possession of the parties to the suit. Since there was no clarity with regard to the measurement of the extent of property in the possession of the respective parties, the present application was filed in IA No.1 of 2026 to reopen IA No.44 of 2020.
4. The Court below has dismissed this application on the ground that the present petition is unnecessary. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed before this Court.
5. In the considered view of this Court, the report of the Advocate Commissioner cannot be the basis for the Court to conclude the extent of property in which the parties are in possession. This exercise will be done only based on the evidence that is let in by the parties and at the best, the report of the Advocate commissioner can only be taken as another piece of evidence. In
( Uploaded on: 08/10/2026 04:56:44 pm )
CRP No. 6164 of 2026
any case, the petitioner has submitted the objections to the report of the Advocate Commissioner and if required, the Advocate Commissioner can be examined as a witness in this case to clarify the objections raised by the petitioner. For this purpose, it is not necessary to once again reopen IA No.44 of 2020.
6. In the light of the above discussion, it is left open to the petitioner to examine the Advocate Commissioner as a witness, if so advised. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Court below.
7. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. No Costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 01-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SSR
( Uploaded on: 08/10/2026 04:56:44 pm )
CRP No. 6164 of 2026
To The Additional District Munsif, Vellore.
( Uploaded on: 08/10/2026 04:56:44 pm )
CRP No. 6164 of 2026
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. SSR CRP No. 6164 of 2026 01-10-2026
( Uploaded on: 08/10/2026 04:56:44 pm )